South Africa Case Law

Van Stryp v Healy (A2024/029832)

Van Stryp v Healy (A2024/029832) [2025] ZAGPJHC 675 (15 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/029832

Judges

Wilson, Du Plessis, Meaden

The majority held that none of the seven Facebook posts published by the respondent constituted defamation or actionable insult against the appellant. Posts 1 to 6, though discourteous and rude, were made in the context of a robust online debate and would not be understood by a reasonable person as lowering the appellant's reputation or dignity. The references to 'stupid people', 'stupidity', and 'B problem' were not proven to refer to the appellant in a defamatory manner, and the phrase 'B problem' was reasonably interpreted as 'big problem'. The seventh post, which could have been defamator…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Iniuria
• Social Media Liability
• Fair Comment
• Objective Reasonable Person Test

Gen4foods (Pty) Ltd v Hadebe and Another (D12392/2023)

Gen4foods (Pty) Ltd v Hadebe and Another (D12392/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 67 (2 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D12392/2023

Judge

Mossop

The applicant established a clear right to protect its reputation against false and defamatory statements. The respondents published unverified and contradictory allegations linking the applicant's product to the death of a child, which scientific and documentary evidence disproved. The second respondent failed to verify the truth of the allegations and acted recklessly, using the tragedy for political gain. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicant's right was infringed, injury was suffered, and no other remedy was available. The relief sought was specific and did not co…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Social Media Liability
• Injury To Reputation
• Freedom Of Expression
• Punitive Costs

Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale and Another (125850/2023)

Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale and Another (125850/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 48 (10 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

125850/2023

Judge

K Strydom

The High Court found that a social media influencer breached interdicts against defamation and boycott incitement, but reserved the final contempt finding and sanction.

• Contempt Of Court
• Defamation
• Interdictory Relief
• Social Media Liability
• Contempt-of-court
• Social-media

Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale (2023-125850)

Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale (2023-125850) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2007 (11 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-125850

Judge

Khwinana

The court found that the applicant established a prima facie right to protection of its reputation and goodwill, which had suffered considerable harm due to the respondent's defamatory social media campaign. The respondent admitted to making and publishing the statements, some of which were acknowledged as false and inherently defamatory, such as calling the applicant "thieves." The respondent failed to provide a bona fide defence or justify her conduct, and documentary evidence contradicted her claims of non-payment. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant fac…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Defamation
• Social Media Liability
• Brand Reputation
• Contractual Obligations

Jacobson v Finch (18830/2020)

Jacobson v Finch (18830/2020) [2023] ZAWCHC 115 (22 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18830/2020

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that the respondent had defamed the applicant but had twice issued sincere, written apologies, including posting them on the same Facebook page where the defamatory statements were made. The apologies were acknowledged by the applicant and his wife. The applicant himself was found to have made offensive and defamatory posts on social media and had published personal information of another individual, contributing to the community conflict. The court held that the respondent's apologies were adequate compensation for the injury to the applicant's dignity and reputation, and tha…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Apology As Remedy
• Injury To Dignity
• Damages Quantum
• Social Media Liability

Daily Maverick (PTY) Ltd and Another v Modiba (33428/2020)

Daily Maverick (PTY) Ltd and Another v Modiba (33428/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 582 (12 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

33428/2020

Judge

Matojane

Default judgment in a defamation claim based on tweets and interviews accusing Daily Maverick of racist, unethical, and fabricated reporting.

• Defamation
• General Damages
• Social Media Liability
• Default Judgment
• Publication Of False Statements
• Default-judgment

Hechter v Benade (20595/2016)

Hechter v Benade (20595/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1018 (5 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20595/2016

Judge

N V Khumalo

An undefended defamation case over Facebook posts led the High Court to award Paul Hechter R350,000 for injury to dignity and reputation, plus interest and costs.

• Defamation
• Dignity Infringement
• Social Media Liability
• General Damages
• Facebook-defamation
• Online-speech

Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016)

Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 200 (20 October 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3592/2016

Judge

Murray AJ

The court found that the respondent's posts were defamatory, as they alleged fraudulent and dishonest conduct by the applicant and its director, without reliable evidence or personal experience. The respondent failed to prove the truth of the allegations or that they were in the public interest. The posts were not fair comment but statements of fact, and the respondent's conduct was motivated by malice, as evidenced by harassment and threats against the applicant's director. The applicant established a clear right to protection of its reputation, reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence o…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Interdict
• Freedom Of Expression
• Social Media Liability

Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12)

Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 243; 2013 (6) SA 529 (GNP) (4 September 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22452/12

Judge

J Hiemstra

The court found that both Facebook postings were defamatory of the plaintiff. The first posting, though not serious defamation, was gratuitous and intended to place the plaintiff in a bad light. The second posting was scandalous, suggesting the plaintiff tolerated sexual deviation, which compounded the damage to her reputation. The postings, taken together and in context, were clearly understood by the relevant audience to refer to the plaintiff, even if not always named. The second defendant, though not the author, was tagged and allowed his name to be coupled with the first defendant, makin…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Social Media Liability
• Publication
• Identification Of Plaintiff
• Damages For Defamation

H v W (12/10142)

H v W (12/10142) [2013] ZAGPJHC 1; 2013 (2) SA 530 (GSJ); 2013 (5) BCLR 554 (GSJ); [2013] 2 All SA 218 (GSJ) (30 January 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12/10142

Judge

N. P. Willis

The court found that the respondent's Facebook posting was defamatory and unlawfully infringed the applicant's right to privacy and reputation. The respondent failed to justify the publication on grounds of truth, public interest, or fair comment, and acted with malice. The applicant's right to privacy and dignity outweighed the respondent's freedom of expression in this context. Given the nature of social media, an interdict was the only effective remedy, as damages would not provide similar protection. The court ordered the respondent to remove all postings referring to the applicant from F…

Source excerpt

• Interdict
• Defamation
• Privacy Rights
• Social Media Liability
• Actio Iniuriarum